Karnataka High Court
Sri. G. Venkatesh Rao vs The State Of Karnataka on 7 March, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
1
Reserved on : 10.01.2025
Pronounced on : 07.03.2025
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4241 OF 2024
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4250 OF 2024
IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.4241 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. PADMA MALINI G. RAO
W/O SRI G.VENKATESH RAO,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
OCC.:EDITOR, AUTHOR AND
EDUCATIONAL CONSULTANT.
2. SRI G. VENKATESH RAO
S/O. SRI. G. V. G. KRISHNA MURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
OCC.: DESIGNATED SENIOR COUNSEL.
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT E-604,
NAGARJUNA APARTMENTS,
PLOT NO. A-1, CHILLA,
MAYUR KUNJ,
2
EAST DELHI - 110 096.
.. PETITIONERS
(BY SRI PRABHULING K.NAVADGI, SR.ADVOCATE A/W
SRI PRATEEK CHANDRAMOULI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI RAVI KARUMBAIAH
S/O K. G. MANDANNA,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
PRESENTLY HAVING OFFICE AT
NO. 1207, 100 FEET ROAD,
HAL II STAGE,
INDIRANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 008.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI S.SUBRAHMANYA, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS THEREOF
IN C.C.NO.50448/2024 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED
Xth ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, MAYO HALL
UNIT, BENGALURU REGISTERED PURSUANT TO THE ORDER OF
TAKING COGNIZANCE DATED 10.01.2024, FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/S 500 OF IPC 1860.
3
IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.4250 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
1 . SRI G. VENKATESH RAO
S/O SRI G. V. G. KRISHNA MURTY,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
DESIGNATED SENIOR ADVOCATE,
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.
2 . SMT. PADMAMALINI G. RAO
W/O G. VENKATESHWARA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
OCC.: EDITOR, AUTHOR AND
EDUCATIONAL CONSULTANT.
BOTH RESIDING AT E-604,
NAGARJUNA APTS,
PLOT A-1, CHILLA/MAYUR KUNJ,
VASUNDHRA ENCLAVE S.D.,
EAST DELHI - 110 096.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI PRABHULING K.NAVADGI, SR.ADVOCATE A/W
SRI PRATEEK CHANDRAMOULI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY INDIRANAGAR P. S.,
BENGALURU - 570 038
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
4
2. M/S. CARPENTERS CLASSIC EXIM PVT. LTD.,
NO. 1214, 100 FT ROAD,
HAL 2ND STAGE,
INDIRANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 038,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGER,
SRI. SURESH. A. R.,
S/O. A. B. RAMARATHNAM,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.
PRESENTLY HAVING OFFICE AT
NO.1207, 100 FEET ROAD,
HAL 2ND STAGE,
INDIRANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 038,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
ADMINISTRATIVE MANAGER,
SRI SURESH A.R.,
S/O A.B.RAMARATHNAM,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL.SPP, FOR R-1;
SRI S.SUBRAHMANYA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 10.01.2024,
TAKING OF COGNIZANCE FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 447, 341, 323,
427, 379, 504, 506 OF IPC IN CR.NO.523/2010 PENDING ON THE
FILE OF THE LEARNED X ACMM MAYO HALL BENGALURU.
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 10.01.2025, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
5
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CAV ORDER
Both these petitions are by common petitioners and
complainants are different. The two are taken up together and
considered by this common order.
2. In Crl.P.No.4241 of 2024, proceedings before the X
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore
in C.C.No.50448 of 2024 registered for offence punishable under
Section 500 of the IPC are called in question. The petitioners are
accused Nos.1 and 2, husband and wife.
3. In Crl.P.No.4250 of 2024 registration of a crime in Crime
No.523 of 2010 and further proceedings pending before the X
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayo Hall Unit, Bangalore
are called in question. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2,
husband and the wife, as obtaining in Crl.P.No.4241 of 2024.
6
4. Facts in brief, germane in Crl.P.No.4241 of 2024 are:
The 2nd petitioner is a practicing and a designated Senior
Advocate practicing before the Supreme Court of India. The 1st
petitioner is the wife of the 2nd petitioner, the senior Advocate. The
two after marriage relocate to New Delhi. The 1st petitioner/wife is
the absolute owner of a property bearing No.1214 on 100 ft. road,
HAL II stage, Indiranagar, Bangalore. The complainant is a
businessman. He is one of the Directors of the Company M/s.
Carpenters Classic India Pvt. Ltd., who are into the business of
manufacture of modular kitchens. On 11-10-1994, the ground and
the first floor of the property of the 1st petitioner is leased in favour
of the M/s. Carpenters Classic India Pvt. Ltd. 5 years after the
property being leased in favour of the aforesaid Company on 1-1-
1999, the 2nd petitioner causes a legal notice upon the complainant
indicating that the Joint Directorate of Revenue Intelligence -
Customs Income Tax raid took place in the premises that was
owned by the 1st petitioner and leased out to the aforesaid
complainant. In the legal notice it was directed that the Company
should vacate the premises since the lease had expired in the year
1998, while so saying, it was also observed that alleged illegal
7
activities had prompted raids by the Income Tax and the DRI.
Therefore, the building had been brought to disrepute.
5. The complainant then files a suit for injunction in
O.S.No.3529 of 1999 to restrain the petitioners/accused from
evicting the complainant from the leased premises. All was
standstill after an order of injunction being granted. On
01-03-2013, 14 years after the legal notice so caused, the
complainant registers a private complaint invoking Section 200 of
the Cr.P.C. in P.C.R.51547 of 2013 alleging that the legal notice so
caused against the complainant was defamatory. Several other
proceedings initiated by the petitioners against the complainant was
also made subject matter of the complaint, but the alleged
defamatory act related to the legal notice caused in the year 1999.
On 10-11-2017, the learned Magistrate passes an order that
process cannot be issued without recording the sworn statement of
the complainant. The matter was then posted for recording of the
sworn statement and the complainant remains absent throughout.
On 07-10-2023 sworn statement of the complainant is recorded
after 10 years and 7 months of registration of the complainant and
8
on 10-01-2024, the learned Magistrate takes cognizance of the
offence punishable under Section 500 of the IPC and registers
C.C.No.50448 of 2024. It is taking of cognizance and issuance of
summons for the aforesaid offence of defamation is what has driven
the petitioners to this Court in the subject petition.
6. Facts in brief, in Crl.P.No.4250 of 2024, are:
Up to the date of causing of legal notice, the facts narrated in
Crl.P.4241 of 2024 are to be paraphrased. The complainant in the
case at hand is the Company who was the lessee. After the causing
of the legal notice and institution of the suit in O.S.No.3529 of
1999, a crime comes to be registered by the Company on 23-12-
2010 in Crime No.523 of 2010 for offences punishable under
Sections 448, 323, 427, 504 and 506 of the IPC. The allegation in
the complaint was that the 1st petitioner in the subject petition, the
Senior Advocate along with 6 goondas come into the premises in a
vehicle bearing registration No.KA03-MA-1499 and assaulted the
office boy and trespassed into the leased premises. It is therefore,
the aforesaid crime sprang for the afore-quoted offences. The
police conduct investigation and file a 'B' report holding that a civil
9
dispute is projected to become a crime. The 'B' report was
presented before the concerned Court on 07-01-2012.
7. After about 18 months, the Administrative Manager of the
complainant company files a protest memo. After the protest
memo they do not appear before the Court. The Court dismisses
the case for its non-prosecution, which was challenged before the
Court of Sessions in a Criminal Revision Petition. The case before
the concerned Court is restored. The sworn statement of the
Directors of the Company is record on 25-03-2017 partially, 6 years
pass by, further sworn statement is recorded on 07-10-2023. The
learned Magistrate takes cognizance of the offences as alleged in
the crime and issues summons. Therefore, the learned Magistrate
after 14 years, has taken cognizance of the offence and issued
summons. Issuing of summons is what has driven these petitioners
to this Court in the subject petition.
8. Heard Sri Prabhuling K Navadgi, learned senior counsel
appearing for petitioners in both the petitions, Sri B N Jagadeesh,
learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for State, and
10
Sri S Subrahmanya appearing for respondent in Crl.P.No.4241 of
2024 and for respondent No.2 in Crl.P.No.4250 of 2024.
9. The learned senior counsel Sri Prabhuling K Navadgi
appearing for petitioners would vehemently contend insofar as it
concerns Crl.P.4241 of 2024, there was nothing defamatory in the
legal notice so caused. The legal notice was caused in the year
1999 and the complaint is registered in the year 2013. The offence
under Section 500 of the IPC is punishable to a maximum of 3
years imprisonment. Therefore, the complaint so filed is hit by
Section 468 of the Cr.P.C. The Magistrate could not have taken
cognizance of the offence. Even otherwise, the learned senior
counsel would submit that the Magistrate ought to have considered
the 4th exception to Section 499 of the IPC which holds that the
publication of reports of proceedings of Courts do not constitute
defamation, if they are substantially true. The alleged defamatory
legal notice was never put to circulation in the public, it was only
between the 2nd petitioner and the complainant. Therefore, the
notice cannot be termed to be defamatory. He would seek
quashment of the proceeding, relying on plethora of judgments, all
11
of which would bear consideration qua their relevance in the course
of the order.
10. The learned senior counsel in Crl.P.No.4250 of 2024
would submit that the allegations in the complaint are made 11
years after the incident, as the complaint itself comes to be
registered in the year 2010 for an eviction notice issued in the year
1999. The police had rightly filed a 'B' report, as it did not
constitute an offence. The learned Magistrate, after waiting for 10
long years, now passes an order taking cognizance of the offence,
as afore-quoted, in total contravention of the law declared by this
Court, as he neither rejects the 'B' report nor accepts it. He would
submit that the offence under Section 448 of the IPC will get
attracted only when a person unlawfully enters into the property
possessed by another. The accused here were in possession of the
property. Therefore, there was no question of trespass. He would
seek quashment of the subject proceeding as well.
11. Per-contra, the learned counsel Sri S Subrahmanya
refuting the submissions in Crl.P.No.4241 of 2024 would
12
vehemently contend that it is not one, but several proceedings are
instituted against the Company or the respondent/complainant, all
of which have ended in favour of the complainant or the Company,
in that light, the petitioners have defamed the image of the
Company and the complainant in the eyes of the general public.
Since it all started on causing a legal notice which contained several
allegations, complaint had to be registered after closure of the
proceedings between the two in most of the cases. Therefore, it is
a continuing cause of action and cannot be said that it is registered
after delay of 14 years. The contents of the legal notice caused are
per se defamatory. The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of
the offence for defamation and therefore, this Court exercising its
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. should not interfere.
He seeks dismissal of Crl.P.No.4241 of 2024.
12. In Crl.P.No.4250 of 2024, the learned counsel for the
complainant would submit that the complainant had an order of
injunction in his favour. The complainant had vacated the
premises, the lease had not come to an end in the manner known
in law, therefore, it did amount to trespass of the complainant's
13
property. The other offences alleged of assault, wrongful restraint
and theft are all met in the case at hand, as the security or the
office boy of the complainant's Company was abused and assaulted
and all the movables belonging to the Company were either thrown
out or taken away. Therefore, it did amount to theft. He would
submit that the police had erroneously filed the 'B' report and the
concerned Court has appropriately rejected the 'B' report and taken
cognizance and issued summons. Therefore, the learned counsel
would seek dismissal of this petition as well.
13. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing
in Crl.P.No.4250 of 2024 would submit that the police after
investigation had filed a 'B' report, finding the matter purely civil in
nature, as there were proceedings pending between the parties.
Since the police had filed the 'B' report he would leave the order to
be passed by this Court.
14. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions
made by the respective learned counsel for the parties and have
perused the material on record. In furtherance whereof, in
14
Crl.P.No.4241 of 2024, the issue that would arise for consideration
is, whether the allegations made in C.C.No.50448 of 2024
meet the ingredients necessary to attract Section 500 of the
IPC?
15. To consider this issue, it is necessary to take a little walk
in history, as the facts are of 25 years vintage. The petitioners are
husband and wife. The 1st petitioner owned a premises as afore-
quoted in Bengaluru. The complainant is one of the Directors of a
Company by name M/s. Carpenters Classic India Pvt. Ltd.,.
Desirous of taking on lease, the complainant's Company and the 1st
petitioner enter into a lease agreement wherein the 1st petitioner
leased out ground floor and the first floor of the property to the
complainant. 5 years pass by. It transpires due to certain
allegations, the premises of the Company became the subject
matter of raids conducted by the DRI, Income Tax and the Customs
department. Since the premises belonged to the 1st petitioner and
also the fact that the lease had come to an end, the 2nd petitioner
husband causes a legal notice. This legal notice is the subject of
defamation. The complaint for defamation was not registered
15
immediately. Though the legal notice was caused in the year 1999,
a complaint comes to be registered invoking Section 200 of the
Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate on 01-03-2013, 14 years after
causing of the legal notice.
16. Though several incidents have happened after the said
legal notice being caused, the alleged defamatory statement is
projected to have come from the legal notice so caused in the year
1999. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to notice certain paragraphs
of the complaint so registered against these petitioners, for the
afore-quoted offence. It reads as follows:
"..... .... ...
5. It is submitted that the Accused No.2, who had/has
no right, title, interest, share and or claim in the Schedule
Property wrote a letter dated 1st January 1999 to the
Complainant, the contents of which highly objectionable and
defamatory in nature. It is submitted that the Accused No.2
is neither the owner nor the signatory to the lease
agreement entered into between Complainant and Accused
No.1 except that he is the husband of the Accused No.1,
Accused No.2 had no authority whatsoever to write such a
letter to the Complainant. The contents of the said letter per
se amount to defamation. A copy of the said letter dated 1st
January 1999 is produced herewith as DOCUMENT NO.2.
..... ..... ....
7. Pursuant to issuance of the aforesaid letter dated
1st January 1999, both accused in collusion with one another
16
have made various attempts to throw the
tenant/Complainant out of the Schedule Property by setting
criminal law in motion even though the dispute between the
parties is of civil nature. The said conduct of both Accused is
blatantly illegal and unlawful. Both Accused by colluding with
each other have intentionally filed various false and frivolous
criminal complaints against the Complainant and his wife
with malafide intention of throwing the Complainant out of
the Schedule Premises. The various illegal attempts made by
the Accused No.2 in collusion with Accused No.1 are as
follows
(a) Accused Nos.1 and 2 in order to exert
force and to compel tenant/Complainant to vacate
Schedule Property have initially written a letter
dated 19th November 2004, to the Chairman and
Board of Director, Veneta Cucine Spa, Italy, who
are the principal of the Complainant's Company,
making false and reckless allegation against
Complainant with the intention of tarnishing the
Image of Complainant in the eye of his principal
and others at Italy. The said letter is self-
explanatory. A copy of said letter dated 19th
November 2004 is produced herewith as
DOCUMENT NO.5.
(b) Accused got issued a legal notice dated
2nd October 2006 through Sri Devendra Singh,
Advocate, to the Chairman of the Board, Italy,
making claim E-10,000 Euros per month besides
3,50,000 Euros, from the principal of the
Complainant's Company without any basis with the
sole object of defaming and tarnishing the image of
the Complainant and his business concerns. The
said conduct of the Accused is un-warranted and
unlawful Copy of the legal notice dated 2nd Oct 06
is produced as DOCUMENT NO.6.
(c) It is submitted that both Accused in
collusion with one another are in the habit of
lodging complaints after complaints against the
Complainant and his wife with the Indiranagar
police and complaints registered in C. Misc
17
No.105/2008 and C. Misc. No. 10/2009, the
Indiranagar Police nave issued an endorsement
clearly stating that both the said complaints filed
by Accused are false. Copies of endorsements
issued by Indiranagar Police are produced as
DOCUMENT NOS.7 & 8. The said conduct of both
Accused amount to malicious prosecution of the
Complainant and his wife with the sole object of
achieving the malafide intention of taking
possession of the leased premises without resorting
to the due process of law.
(d) Similarly 5 other false complaints that
were filed by both Accused, and the Indiranagar
Police have issued an endorsement by clearly
stating that the dispute between the parties is of
civil in nature and the accused should approach the
Hon'ble Civil Court. The accused have filed another
complaint alleging trespass against the complainant
which came to be registered in Crime No.
168/2006. The Copies of the said five such
endorsements issued by the Indiranagar police are
produced as DOCUMENT NOS.9 TO 13.
(e) In addition to the said complaints the
Accused No.2 filed another false and frivolous
complaint in Delhi in FIR No. 21/2008, for extortion
in which the police have filed a 'B' report against
which Accused No 2 has filed a protest memo but
the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has granted stay of
further proceedings. Copies of FIR 21/08, 'B' report
and stay copy are as DOCUMENT NOS. 14. 15 &
16.
(f) Further both the Accused got issued
letters to the police from high ranking Government
Officers and dignitaries, to achieve the object of
illegally throwing the Complainant out of the
premises. The said letters have emanated from
Secretary to Governor of Karnataka, Central
Bureau of Investigation and Anticorruption Branch,
New Delhi, Ministry of Home affairs, Government of
India, Karnataka Governor's Secretariat. Copies of
18
four (4) influential letters are collectively produced
as DOCUMENT NO.17.
(g) It is submitted that due to influence
exerted by the Accused the Indiranagar police have
acted upon the false and frivolous complaint lodged
by Accused and have filed false FIR's against
Complainant and one such false FIR was registered
in Crime No.243/2006 on 13th September 2006.
The said FIR though registered during 2006 on a
false complaint filed by Accused No.1, the
Indiranagar Police could not make any progress on
the said FIR for almost two years, since there was
no substance in the complaint. However, on 8th
January 2008, the Indiranagar Police without
seizure of any material or conducting any
investigation into the matter, arrested the
Complainant, under the aforesaid FIR and produced
him before the X ACMM, Mayo Hall, Bangalore, who
has remanded the Complainant to judicial custody
till 22nd January 2008 for no fault of the
Complainant, and that too without any
investigation or enquiry by the Indiranagar police.
Further the Indiranagar Police at the time of arrest
informed the Complainant that their hands were
tied and that they cannot do anything but to arrest
the Complainant. It is pertinent to mention here
that though no progress was made on the FIR for 2
years, the attest was made on 8th January 2008, in
an arbitrary and illegal manner because of the
influence exerted by both Accused. Copy of the
Order sheet in Crime No. 243/2006 is produced
herewith as DOCUMENT NO. 18.
..... ..... ....
12. It is submitted that Accused No.2 claims himself
as an advocate practicing in Supreme Court has
deliberatively damaged in reputation of Complainant by filing
false and frivolous complaint, pressuring the Indiranagar
Police to register FIR and compelled to arrest Complainant
with wrongful motive without any investigation or
opportunity to explain the circumstances. However, Criminal
19
Petition No.354/2008 came to be filed by Complainant for
quashing the FIR, which was allowed by the Hon'ble High
Court of Karnataka and said FIR came to be quashed, which
crystallizes the malicious acts of both Accused. Thus it goes
without saying that both Accused have harassed Complainant
to the maximum by way of filing false and frivolous criminal
complaints after complaints against Complainant for acts
which did not exist. It is submitted that the Complainant has
not received any notice from any Hon'ble Court regarding
appeal having been preferred by the Accused on the order
dated 29th February 2012, passed by the Hon'ble High Court
in Criminal Petition No.354/2008."
17. After the filing of the complaint in the year 2013, the
proceedings travel for 10 years. The learned Magistrate, passes an
order that without recording the sworn statement of the
complainant no process can commence. The complainant does not
appear before the Court to record his sworn statement for a long
time. It transpires that he records his statement only once in 5
years. On 06-01-2018, matter is posted to record the sworn
statement of the complainant. He does not appear for 5 years and
after 5 years appears and tenders his sworn statement. After
recording of the sworn statement which was by itself recorded after
10 years of registration of the crime, the learned Magistrate takes
cognizance of the offence under Section 500 of the IPC. The order
of taking of cognizance and issuance of process reads as follows:
20
"ORDERS ON ISSUANCE OF PROCESS
Complainant filed the private complaint under Section 200
of Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under Section 500 of IPC.
2. It is the case of the complainant that, Complainant is
one of the Directors of M/s. Carpenters Classic Exim Pvt. Ltd.,
and M/s. Carpenters Classic India Pvt. Ltd., Accused in collusion
with each other, are in the habit of filing false complaints
against the complainant and his wife. The Indiranagar Police
have also issued endorsements that they are false complaints.
Accused have filed various false cases against the complainant
in Bengaluru and Delhi, where the Police have given an
endorsement that the dispute is Civil in nature and in the case
filed in Delhi, 'B' Report was filed. Due to the influence exerted
by the accused, Indiranagar police registered a false complaint
in 2006 to eject the complainant and he was arrested in 2008.
Complainant was forced to spend a day in judicial custody due
to the false case filed by the accused. Therefore, it is a malicious
prosecution of the accused. Thereafter, when the complainant
filed for quashing of the case, the investigation was stayed and
later quashed by the Hon'ble High Court. Accused persons have
damaged the reputation of the complainant by filing false and
frivolous complaints, got him arrested in a false case with wrong
motive. Therefore, malicious prosecution was done willfully and
deliberately to harm and harass the complainant. Hence, he
filed the present private complaint.
5. Complainant led sworn statement in this case and
deposed the same as his complaint averments in his sworn
statement. He got marked 38 documents as Ex.C1 to Ex.C38. Ex
C1 is the complaint, Ex. C2 is the letter issued by Accused no. 2,
Ex.C3 is the Memo filed in OS No.3529/1999, Ex. C4 is the
Decree of the said suit, Ex.C5 are the four letters, Ex. C6 is the
Order sheet of Crime No.243/2006 and the complaint, Ex.C7 is
the C/c of order of CC No.22814/2006, Ex.C8 is the C/c of Order
in Crl Petition No.354/2008, Ex.C9 is the C/c of Memo filed in
OS No.3529/1999, Ex.C10 is the C/c of Decree of OS
No.3529/1999, Ex.C11 is the C/c of letter dated 3.12.2007,
Ex.C12 to 14 are the letters to the Commissioner of Police,
Ministry of Home Affairs and Under Secretary, Ex.C15 is the C/ c
of Order in Crl P NO.354/2008, Ex.C16 in the FIR in
Cr.No.168/2006, Ex.C17 is the C/c of Order in Crl P
21
NO.4244/2009, Ex.C18 and 19 are the C/c of Plaints in OS
No.15037/2005 and 15038/2005, Ex.C20 is the letter to
BESCOM, Ex. C21 is the C/c of Order in WP No18144/2010, Ex.
C22 is the Memo filed by the accused in WP No.18144/2010,
Ex.C23 is the modified order of WP No. 18144/2010, Ex.C24 is
the Complaint filed by Suresh on 23.12.2010, Ex.C25 is the FIR
in Cr. No.523/2010, Ex. C26 is the list of inventories furnished
to the police, Ex.C27 is the counter complaint given by accused
no.2, Ex.C28 is the FIR in Cr.No.524/2010, Ex.C29 to 31 are the
Affidavits, Ex.C32 is the C/c of Order in WP No.812/2011,
Ex.C33 is the C/c of Order in WP No.3111/2011, Ex.C34 is the
C/c of Judgment in CC No. 22814/2006, Ex.C35 is the C/c of
Order in Crl.P No. 3208/2012, Ex.C36 is the C/c of Order in Cri.P
No.4186/2012, Ex.C37 is the C/c of Order in Crl.P No.
1681/2018 and Ex.C38 is the C/c of Order in
Cri.P.No.1682/2018.
6. On perusal of the sworn statement and the
documents, complainant has produced various complaints
and proceedings before various Courts including the
Hon'ble High Court, where the complainant is either
acquitted the proceedings/investigation is quashed by
the Hon'ble High Court. In order to constitute an offence
under section 499 of IPC, the complainant needs to make
out a case that, 1) an imputation was made consisting of
words spoken or written or intended to be read or made
by signs or by visible. Representations; 2) the imputation
concerned the complainant; 3) accused made or
published incriminating imputation and 4) that intention
behind the making or publishing the imputation was
causing harm to the reputation of such person.
7. Therefore, to constitute an offence of defamation
under Section 499, there has to be imputation and it must
have been made in the manner as provided in the
provision with the intention of causing harm or having
reason to believe that such imputation will harm the
reputation of the person about whom it is made. Whether
the content of the said complaints and allegations made
by the accused against the complainant, or whether it
was made by the accused, or whether it came to the
notice of others or not or whether the complainant's
reputations was demeaned in the estimation of others or
22
not, are questions of facts to be determined in this case
at a later stage.
8. At this stage, on perusal of the complaint and the
sworn statement and the documents produced, there are
sufficient grounds and prima facie case for issuing process
against accused for answering the plea for the offences
punishable under Section 500 of I.P.C. Therefore, I proceed to
pass the following:
ORDER
Cognizance is taken against accused for the
offence punishable under Section 500 of I.P.C
Office is directed to register the case against
the accused no.1 & 2 in Register No. III for the
offence punishable under Section 500 of I.P.C.
Issue summons to accused, if steps taken,
R/by 23.03.2024
Sd/-10/1
X ACMM, Bangalore”
(Emphasis added)
Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the afore-quoted order of the learned
Magistrate is what forms the reason for taking of cognizance. The
learned Magistrate quotes all the documents relied on by the
complainant during his sworn statement. What are those
documents is necessary to be noticed, they are documents of all
crimes registered between the parties, either instituted by the
23petitioners or by the complainant against the petitioners. They are
as follows:
“LIST OF DISPUTES BETWEEN THE PARTIES
Case No. Description
OS No.3529/1999 Suit filed by Sri. Ravi Karumbaiah against the Petitioners/ Accused.
Decreed on 29/01/2005.
Crl.P.No.354/2008 Petition allowed u/s 482 of CrPC in favour of Sri. Ravi Karumbaiah
and the FIR and complaint registered in Crime No. 243/2006 are
quashed.
CC No. 22814/2006 Sri. Ravi Karumbaiah is acquitted for offences of criminal trespass
and mischief.
Crl.P.No. 4244/2009 Petition allowed u/s 482 of CrPC in favour of Sri. Ravi Karumbaiah
and FIR No. 271/2009 is quashed.
OS No. 15037/2005 Filed by Smt. Padmamalini G Rao against Smt. Gopika Karumbaiah
the wife of Sri. Ravi Karumbaiah for eviction and mesne profits/
damages. The case was subsequently withdrawn.
OS No. 15038/2005 Filed by Smt. Padmamalini G. Rao against M/s Carpenter Classic
Exim Pvt. Ltd. The case was subsequently withdrawn.
WP No. 18144/2010 Writ Petition filed by Sri. Ravi Karumbaiah was allowed.
Crime No. 523/2010 Impugned order challenged in the present petition- Crl. P.
4250/2024.
CC No. 22023/2012 Complaint filed by the Petitioners/ Accused. The order taking
(FIR No. 524/2010) cognizance was subsequently quashed in Crl. P. 3208/2012.
WP No. 812/2011 Wit Petition flied by Sri. Ravi Karumbaiah challenging FIR No.
(GM – Police) 524/2010. Direction was given to not dispossess Sri Ravi
Karumbaiah.
WA No. 3111/2011 Appeal against WP No. 812/2011 disposed of.
and WA No. 15423-
425/2011 (GM-
Police)
Crl. P. No. 4186/2012 Petition allowed u/s 482 of Cr.P.C in favour of Sri Ravi Karumbaiah
and the order taking cognizance in CC No. 22148/2012 is quashed.
Crl. P. No. 1681/2018 Petition allowed u/s 482 of Cr.P.C in favour of Sri. Ravi Karumbaiah
and the FIR and proceedings in CC No. 22023/2012 are quashed.
24
Crl. P. No. 1682/2018 Petition allowed u/s 482 of Cr.P.C in favour of Sri Ravi Karumbaiah
and FIR and proceedings in CC No. 22148/2012 are quashed.”
18. Therefore, what forms the fulcrum of the complaint and
the order of taking of cognizance is the afore-quoted list of disputes
between the parties. Whether this would constitute an offence for
defamation is what is required to be noticed. Section 500 of the
IPC which punishes defamation reads as follows:
“500. Punishment for defamation.–Whoever
defames another shall be punished with simple imprisonment
for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or
with both.”
Section 500 has certain exceptions, which would not amount to
defamation, as obtaining in Section 499 of the IPC. Section 499 of
the IPC reads as follows:
“499. Defamation.–Whoever, by words either
spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible
representations, makes or publishes any imputation
concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or
having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the
reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases
hereinafter excepted, to defame that person.
Explanation 1.–It may amount to defamation to
impute anything to a deceased person, if the imputation
would harm the reputation of that person if living, and is
25intended to be hurtful to the feelings of his family or other
near relatives.
Explanation 2.–It may amount to defamation to make
an imputation concerning a company or an association or
collection of persons as such.
Explanation 3.–An imputation in the form of an
alternative or expressed ironically, may amount to
defamation.
Explanation 4.–No imputation is said to harm a
person’s reputation, unless that imputation directly or
indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or
intellectual character of that person, or lowers the character
of that person in respect of his caste or of his calling, or
lowers the credit of that person, or causes it to be believed
that the body of that person is in a loathsome state, or in a
state generally considered as disgraceful.
Illustrations
(a) A says–“Z is an honest man; he never stole B’s
watch”; intending to cause it to be believed that Z did steal
B’s watch. This is defamation, unless it falls within one of the
exceptions.
(b) A is asked who stole B’s watch. A points to Z,
intending to cause it to be believed that Z stole B’s watch.
This is defamation, unless it falls within one of the
exceptions.
(c) A draws a picture of Z running away with B’s watch
intending it to be believed that Z stole B’s watch. This is
defamation, unless it falls within one of the exceptions.
First Exception–Imputation of truth which public
good requires to be made or published.–It is not
defamation to impute anything which is true concerning any
person, if it be for the public good that the imputation should
be made or published. Whether or not it is for the public
good is a question of fact.
26
Second Exception–Public conduct of public
servants.–It is not defamation to express in good faith any
opinion whatever respecting the conduct of a public servant
in the discharge of his public functions, or respecting his
character, so far as his character appears in that conduct,
and no further.
Third Exception–Conduct of any person touching
any public question.–It is not defamation to express in
good faith any opinion whatever respecting the conduct of
any person touching any public question, and respecting his
character, so far as his character appears in that conduct,
and no further.
Illustration
It is not defamation in A to express in good faith any
opinion whatever respecting Z’s conduct in petitioning
Government on a public question, in signing a requisition for
a meeting on a public question, in presiding or attending at
such meeting, in forming or joining any society which invites
the public support, in voting or canvassing for a particular
candidate for any situation in the efficient discharge of the
duties of which the public is interested.
Fourth Exception.–Publication of reports of
proceedings of courts.–It is not defamation to publish a
substantially true report of the proceedings of a Court of
Justice, or of the result of any such proceedings.
Explanation.–A Justice of the Peace or other officer
holding an enquiry in open Court preliminary to a trial in a
Court of Justice, is a Court within the meaning of the above
section.
Fifth Exception.–Merits of case decided in Court
or conduct of witnesses and others concerned.–It is
not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever
respecting the merits of any case, civil or criminal, which has
been decided by a Court of Justice, or respecting the conduct
of any person as a party, witness or agent, in any such case,
27
or respecting the character of such person, as far as his
character appears in that conduct, and no further.
Illustrations
(a) A says–“I think Z’s evidence on that trial is so
contradictory that he must be stupid or dishonest.” A is
within this exception if he says this in good faith, inasmuch
as the opinion which he expresses respects Z’s character as
it appears in Z’s conduct as a witness, and no further.
(b) But if A says–“I do not believe what Z asserted at
that trial because I know him to be a man without veracity”;
A is not within this exception, inasmuch as the opinion which
he expresses of Z’s character, is an opinion not founded on
Z’s conduct as a witness.
Sixth Exception.–Merits of public performance.–
It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion
respecting the merits of any performance which its author
has submitted to the judgment of the public, or respecting
the character of the author so far as his character appears in
such performance, and no further.
Explanation.–A performance may be submitted to the
judgment of the public expressly or by acts on the part of the
author which imply such submission to the judgment of the
public.
Illustrations
(a) A person who publishes a book, submits that book
to the judgment of the public.
(b) A person who makes a speech in public, submits
that speech to the judgment of the public.
(c) An actor or singer who appears on a public stage,
submits his acting or singing to the judgment of the public.
28
(d) A says of a book published by Z–“Z’s book is
foolish; Z must be a weak man. Z’s book is indecent; Z must
be a man of impure mind”. A is within the exception, if he
says this in good faith, inasmuch as the opinion which he
expresses of Z respects Z’s character only so far as it
appears in Z’s book, and no further.
(e) But if A says–“I am not surprised that Z’s book is
foolish and indecent, for he is a weak man and a libertine.” A
is not within this exception, inasmuch as the opinion which
he expresses of Z’s character is an opinion not founded on
Z’s book.
Seventh Exception.–Censure passed in good
faith by person having lawful authority over another.–
It is not defamation in a person having over another any
authority, either conferred by law or arising out of a lawful
contract made with that other, to pass in good faith any
censure on the conduct of that other in matters to which
such lawful authority relates.
Illustration
A Judge censuring in good faith the conduct of a
witness, or of an officer of the Court; a head of a department
censuring in good faith those who are under his orders; a
parent censuring in good faith a child in the presence of
other children; a schoolmaster, whose authority is derived
from a parent, censuring in good faith a pupil in the presence
of other pupils; a master censuring a servant in good faith
for remissness in service; a banker censuring in good faith
the cashier of his bank for the conduct of such cashier as
such cashier–are within this exception.
Eighth Exception.–Accusation preferred in good
faith to authorised per-son.–It is not defamation to
prefer in good faith an accusation against any person to any
of those who have lawful authority over that person with
respect to the subject-matter of accusation.
Illustration
29
If A in good faith accuses Z before a Magistrate; if A in
good faith complains of the conduct of Z, a servant, to Z’s
master; if A in good faith complains of the conduct of Z, a
child, to Z’s father–A is within this exception.
Ninth Exception.–Imputation made in good faith
by person for protection of his or other’s interests.–It
is not defamation to make an imputation on the character of
another provided that the imputation be made in good faith
for the protection of the interest of the person making it, or
of any other person, or for the public good.
Illustrations
(a) A, a shopkeeper, says to B, who manages his
business–“Sell nothing to Z unless he pays you ready
money, for I have no opinion of his honesty.” A is within the
exception, if he has made this imputation on Z in good faith
for the protection of his own interests.
(b) A, a Magistrate, in making a report to his own
superior officer, casts an imputation on the character of Z.
Here, if the imputation is made in good faith, and for the
public good, A is within the exception.
Tenth Exception.–Caution intended for good of
person to whom conveyed or for public good.–It is not
defamation to convey a caution, in good faith, to one person
against another, provided that such caution be intended for
the good of the person to whom it is conveyed, or of some
person in whom that person is interested, or for the public
good.”
To constitute defamation, there must be an intention of harming or
knowing that a statement will harm the reputation of a person
about whom it is made. It would be no imputation that would harm
a person, if the alleged defamatory statements are not published.
30
Plethora of cases by the Apex Court have considered this aspect.
Therefore, a deeper delving into the interpretation of what would
constitute a defamation is not necessary, except for considering the
judgments so rendered by the Apex Court.
19. The Apex Court in the case of JEFFREY J. DIERMEIER
V. STATE OF WEST BENGAL1, has held as follows:
“…. …. ….
29. To constitute “defamation” under Section
499 IPC, there must be an imputation and such
imputation must have been made with the intention of
harming or knowing or having reason to believe that it
will harm the reputation of the person about whom it
is made. In essence, the offence of defamation is the
harm caused to the reputation of a person. It would be
sufficient to show that the accused intended or knew
or had reason to believe that the imputation made by
him would harm the reputation of the complainant,
irrespective of whether the complainant actually
suffered directly or indirectly from the imputation
alleged.
30. However, as per Explanation 4 to the section,
no imputation is said to harm a person’s reputation,
unless that imputation directly or indirectly lowers the
moral or intellectual character of that person, or
lowers the character of that person in respect of his
caste or of his calling, or lowers the credit of that
person, in the estimation of others or causes it to be
believed that the body of that person is in a loathsome
1
(2010)6 SCC 243
31
state, or in a state generally considered as
disgraceful.”
(Emphasis supplied)
The Apex Court holds that there must be an imputation and such
imputation must have been made with the intention of harming the
reputation of a person. The Apex Court, later, in the case of
MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI V. MANISH SISODIA2, holds as
follows:
“…. …. ….
66. We do not know how a statement in a tweet that
the answers of Respondent 1 to the questions posed by the
appellant will disclose his scam, can be said to be
defamatory. We are afraid that even if a person
belonging to a political party had challenged a person
holding public office by stating “I will expose your
scam”, the same may not amount to defamation.
Defamatory statement should be specific and not very
vague and general. The essential ingredient of Section
499 is that the imputation made by the accused should
have the potential to harm the reputation of the
person against whom the imputation is made.
Therefore, we are of the view that the statement made
by Shri Vijender Gupta (A-5) to the effect “your
answer will disclose your scam” cannot be considered
to be an imputation intending to harm or knowing or
having reason to believe that it will harm the
reputation of Respondent 1.”
(Emphasis supplied)
2
(2023)15 SCC 401
32
The Apex Court holds that the statement that the complainant
would expose the scam therein does not become a defamatory
statement, as it is vague and general. The Apex Court, in a later
judgment, in the case of IVECO MAGIRUS
BRANDSCHUTZTECHNIK GMBH V. NIRMAL KISHORE
BHARTIYA3 has held as follows:
“…. …. ….
62. In the context of a complaint of defamation, at the
stage the Magistrate proceeds to issue process, he has to
form his opinion based on the allegations in the complaint
and other material (obtained through the process referred to
in Section 200/Section 202) as to whether “sufficient ground
for proceeding” exists as distinguished from “sufficient
ground for conviction”, which has to be left for determination
at the trial and not at the stage when process is issued.
Although there is nothing in the law which in express
terms mandates the Magistrate to consider whether
any of the Exceptions to Section 499IPC is attracted,
there is no bar either. After all, what is “excepted”
cannot amount to defamation on the very terms of the
provision. We do realise that more often than not, it
would be difficult to form an opinion that an Exception
is attracted at that juncture because neither a
complaint for defamation (which is not a regular
phenomenon in the criminal courts) is likely to be
drafted with contents, nor are statements likely to be
made on oath and evidence adduced, giving an escape
route to the accused at the threshold. However, we
hasten to reiterate that it is not the law that the
Magistrate is in any manner precluded from
considering if at all any of the Exceptions is attracted
3
(2024)2 SCC 86
33
in a given case; the Magistrate is under no fetter from
so considering, more so because being someone who
is legally trained, it is expected that while issuing
process he would have a clear idea of what constitutes
defamation. If, in the unlikely event, the contents of
the complaint and the supporting statements on oath
as well as reports of investigation/inquiry reveal a
complete defence under any of the Exceptions to
Section 499IPC, the Magistrate, upon due application
of judicial mind, would be justified to dismiss the
complaint on such ground and it would not amount to
an act in excess of jurisdiction if such dismissal has
the support of reasons.”
(Emphasis supplied)
The Apex Court holds that the reports of investigation, supporting
documents or proceedings before the Court of law would come
within the exception under Section 499 of the IPC and would not
become per se defamatory.
20. If the complaint so registered is considered on the
touchstone of the principles laid down by the Apex Court, what
would unmistakably emerge is, that dragging the complainant into
litigation or the complainant dragging the petitioners into litigation
on several grievances, grounds or allegations would constitute legal
proceedings between the two, which would not and cannot be said
to be defamatory, merely because the case has gone in favour of
34
the complainant. It would have been altogether a different
circumstance if it was a case of malicious prosecution. While
defamation, has some hues of malicious prosecution, substantially
it is not. Therefore, all that remains is, whether the legal notice
caused on 01-01-1999 seeking vacation of the premises in which
certain statements were made is defamatory or not. Therefore, it
becomes germane to notice the legal notice so caused by the 2nd
petitioner, it runs as follows:
“1st January’ 99
Mr.Ravi Karumbaiah
Managing Director,
CCEXIM Pvt. LtdDear Mr. Karumbaiah,
RE: VACATION OF OUR PREMISES, AT 1214, 100FT, ROAD,
HAL IIND STAGE, INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE- 8, AND
SETTLEMENT OF OUTSTANDING PAYMENTS.
1. With reference, to the previous correspondence, dated,
23rd June’98 and 1st September’ 98- on the subject, by
my wife Padmamalini G. Rao, it appears that there has
been no response by you or Mr. Thomas Mathew, one of
your Directors, regarding the date of vacation.
2. Mr. Thomas Mathew, in his signed communication of 11th
June 1998, had stated that you would require a
reasonable amount of time to vacate the premises but
when asked to vacate vide our letter dated 23rd June’ 98,
did not specified the time. It is further learnt that when
35Mr.Dayanand A. handed over letter dated 1st September
’98, you stated that, “it was fit for the dustbin”. Mr.
Karumbaiah, only fate determines, who ‘bites the dust’
and who goes into the dustbin. Further, you are also not
paying the 10% difference in rent with effect from 1st
June 1998, an accepted by Mr. Thomas Mathew in his
letter dated 11th June 98.
3. Since I am the one whom you approached for the leasing
of the premises in October’ 94, and I was the one who
further allowed you to take the first floor premises. I wish
to finalize this matter with you. My wife has already
communicated with you in this regard vide letter dated
25th December 1997.
4. In the letter dated 25th December 1997, the details
regarding the altercation with you are mentioned,
including the arrival of Police on the scene and the Log
entry of the incident by the Flying squad is also stated.
5. We have now been informed that you have been under
D.R.I. scrutiny for some time and were also being
investigated for Tax evasion. I have further learnt that on
the 18th of December 1998 there was a combined raid by
the D.R.I and the Income Tax department
simultaneously, at your office in our premises, at your
residence, and that of Ms. Jagruthy (Your business
partner), as well as at your factory premises.
6. At these raids, it is learnt that at least 15-20 lakhs, cash
and foreign exchange was recovered, including a number
of incriminating documents, which have been seized by
the authorities, Further more, your accounts room at your
office in our premises has been sealed, and Mr.Dayanand
A and Mr.Deepak of M/s Cyberspaze (using our premises
at back portion) have been made witnesses of this
sealing. It is further learnt that you were asked to
and actually did deposit Rs. 50 lakhs, within 2 hours
of the raid, in order to avoid arrest.
7. We have also learnt that, some of your employees, came
and left some files on 25th December 1998, in the office of
M/s Cyberspaze to be given to Mr. Dayanand A in his
36absence and without his permission. It is also learnt that
these files contain, incriminating documents, regarding
customer lists, payments received from them, as well as
communication from overseas business associates,
regarding rate lists in foreign exchange of goods supplied
etc. We have taken steps to ensure safe custody, of
these files and documents, until we decide what to
do with them.
8. YOU ARE HEREBY INFORMED THAT, YOU SHOULD
VACATE THE PREMISES, ON 1st JUNE 1999,
WITHOUT FAIL AND WITHOUT DAMAGING OUR
PREMISES, LEAVING IT IN GOOD CONDITION YOU
WILL NOT ALTER ANYTHING OR REMOVE ANY
FIXTURE OF A PERMANENT NATURE, LIKE
FLOORING ETC WITHOUT OUR PERMISSION ALL
MAJOR CHANGES MADE BY YOU WITHOUT OUR
PRIOR PERMISSION SHALL BE WE PENALIZED WE
SHALL BE TAKING POSSESSION ON THAT DAY.
9. If you fail to vacate on the 1st of June 1999, we shall be
constrained to lock up our premises, and be rest assured
no court will entertain a petition for restoration, from a
corrupt businessman like you and we will bring out all the
facts to the court regarding the misuse of our premises
and how clause 9 of the lease prohibits it.
10. Any further smart moves from you will result in although
it is not our business, ensuring that the Income Tax
authorities and the D.R.I, unearths, every single rupee
fraudulently and illegally earned by you and you are
severely punished like all other white collar criminals. You
have, in the past, underestimated my capacity and status
of a fairly senior Supreme Court lawyer. Let me warn you,
with all the determination at my command that I will
leave no stone unturned to expose you and get rid of you
from our premises. You have misused the good intentions
with which this premises was given and you have proved
to be a dishonorable man, who is not to be trusted.
I am awaiting an immediate reply within 7 days from today,
accepting to vacate the premises on the said date without
damaging it, by settling fairly the outstanding and also allowing
37new tenants to visit the premises. You are further asked to
deposit the rents regularly on the 5th of every month with 10%
increase, inclusive of outstandings from 1st June 1998.”
What the 2nd petitioner quotes is what has happened. It is a matter
of record that the premises was searched on certain allegations
against the complainant or the Company in which the complainant
was a Director. This by no stretch can be said to be defamatory, as
they were facts poured into the notice, so caused and the notice
was not published anywhere, it was a communication between the
2nd petitioner and the complainant. Therefore, there is no fact that
had not happened narrated in the complaint, nor the complaint was
published to bring down disrepute to the complainant, in the eyes
of general public. Therefore, the offence of defamation cannot be
laid against the petitioner.
21. The act of the Magistrate appears to be that he would
wait till the complainant comes and records his sworn statement, as
the Court has waited for 10 long years to record a sworn statement
and issue process in a seemingly frivolous case registered against
the petitioners. Therefore, on all the aforesaid reasons, the order
38
of taking of cognizance and issuance of process for the offence
punishable under Section 500 of the IPC is rendered unsustainable
and the unsustainability would lead to its obliteration.
22. The facts obtaining in Crl.P.No.4250 of 2024 are similar or
an offshoot of the facts narrated in the aforesaid case. It would
suffice if the issue would commence from noticing the complaint so
registered against the petitioners in the case at hand. It reads as
follows:
“23rd December 2010
BangaloreTo
The Station House Officer
Indira Nagar Police Station
Indira Nagar
Bangalore.
Dear Sir
Sub: Complaint against G. Venkateshwar Rao & Smt
Padmamalini RaoWe are a Company engaged in the business of import and sale
of modular Kitchens We have several branches in Bangalore and
all over India. We have taken Premises on the ground floor front
portion bearing No.1214, 100 feet Road, HAL II Indiranagar
Bangalore 550 038, (for short Premises) from Smt Padmamalini
G Rao, wife of Sri G Venkateshwar Rao under Lease Agreement
dated 11th July 1994 (Copy Attached) and ever since we are in
possession of the Premises.
39
During the year 1999 Sri G. Venkateshwar Rao and his wife
Smt. Padmamalini G. Rao threatened to dispossess the
Company from the Premises. In the situation, we had
approached the Hon’ble City Civil Court, Bangalore in OS
3529/1999 for restraining orders. By decree dated 29th January
2005, the Hon’ble Court was pleased to order that the
Defendant i.e., Smt. Padmamalini G. Rao and Sri. G.
Venkateshwar Rao shall not dispossess us without due process
of law (Copy of the decree attached). Thereafter, Smt.
Padmamalini G. Rao had filed suit in O.S.15038/2005 for
ejectment and the said suit is pending as on date.
In the meanwhile on 23rd December 2010 i.e., today at about
9.30 A.M., Sri.G.Venkateshwar Rao along with about 6 persons
came to the Premises in Vehicle NO.KA-03 MA-1499 at the time
when our office boy Sri. Anand Kumar, had opened the
aforesaid office Premises. After about 10 minutes of opening the
office and as he was cleaning the premises, the said Sri. G.
Venkateshwar Rao along with his men forcibly entered the
premises along with about 6 hired persons/goondas, and
without any reason/s immediately started physically assaulting
the said Sri. Anand Kumar by punching him on his stomach and
chest mercilessly. The other employee viz., Sri. Vinu Kumar,
who had just entered the office at that time was also beaten up
and his helmet was also forcible snatched and damaged by the
said persons. Thereafter the said 2 employees viz., Sri. Anand
Kumar and Sri Vinu Kumar, were forcibly taken to the back side
of the premises to a portion in possession of Smt. Padmamalini
G. Rao and Sri Venkateshwar Rao, and were detailed illegally.
One person claiming to be Sri. G. Venkateshwar Rao, snatched
the mobile belonging to Sri Anand Kumar and Sri Vinu Kumar.
The said Sri.G.Venkateshwar Rao, then started beating Sri
Anand Kumar again and also threatened to kill him and also the
Director of the Company Sri. Ravi Karumbiah, for having made
to go to the Court. The other staff who were to enter the office
were detained at the gate itself. The staff were prevented and
threatened not to inform anybody for their own good. The said 2
(two) employees who were illegally detained were released at
about 10.30 only after other employees came to know about the
detention and went for their rescue at the room situated
backside.
40
In the meanwhile, the remaining persons who had come with
the said Sri. G.Venkateshwar Rao, on his instruction and
directions demolished a portion of the compound wall, brought
down signage and name board of the company and put up a
temporary aluminum sheet to cover the premises so as to
prevent entry to the premises. Thereafter Sri. G. Venkateshwar
Rao, came to the entrance and deputed his persons to prevent
the entry of our staff. We also have reasons to believe that he
has gone inside the premises along with his men and has
caused damage to our belonging. The extent of the damage is
not known as were not allowed to enter the premises.
We also wish to inform you that the fact that the possession of
the promises is with us is evident from the order of the Hon’ble
High Court of Karnataka dated 18th October 2010 and 9th
November 2010 in W.P. No.18144/2010 (Copy attached). We
also inform you that the first floor (front portion) is also in our
possession under different lease agreement and in respect of
the said premises also a suit in O.S.No.15037/2005 is pending
(Copy attached).
We bring to your notice that the action of Sri.G.Venkateshwar
Rao as detailed above despite order of the Court in O.S.No.
3529/1999 and pending litigation in O.S.No.15038/2005
constitutes various offences including criminal trespass, illegal
detention of our staff, threat to life, criminal intimidation,
causing grievous hurt etc., The said Sri G. Venkateshwar Rao,
has close nexus with criminal elements and is using the same
against the company and in particular against its Director Sri
Ravi Karumbiah.
Sri.G. Venkateshwar Rao and his men are still at our premises
illegally preventing entry of our staff to take possession of the
premises by force. If the elements are not removed immediately
from the premises, the same would result in serious further
offences as there is life threats. We request you to register a
complaint against Sri. G Venkateshwar Rao, who is responsible
for the above criminal action and his wife Smt. Padmamalini G.
Rao at whos’ instigation and behest the above crime has been
committed by the said person and also against the said 6
persons hired by the said Sri G. Venkateshwar Rao for the
commission of the offences.
41
In the circumstances, we request you to kindly grant sufficient
protection to the premises in occupation by us and also to our
Director Sri Ravi Karumbaiah, who is under threat.
For CC Exim (P) Ltd..
Sd/-
Authorised Signatory.”
The afore-quoted complaint becomes a crime in Crime No.523 of
2010. A perusal at the complaint would indicate that it was a pure
landlord and tenant dispute. The complaint itself narrates that the
petitioners had threatened the complainant that they would
dispossess them from the premises, therefore, they had instituted a
civil suit in O.S.No.3529 of 1999. It is said that the husband/1st
petitioner, the Senior Advocate and his henchmen came to the
premises and sought to assault the office boy and took away certain
material. Therefore, the complaint is registered. The landlord and
tenant dispute is sought to be projected to become the crime for
the aforesaid offences. The police, after investigation, file a ‘B’
report. Again the learned Magistrate waits for the complainant to
file a protest petition. The complainant takes 18 months to file a
protest petition against the ‘B’ report. The complainant does not
appear after filing of the protest petition. The complaint itself is
42
terminated which is restored by the Sessions Court in a criminal
revision petition. The complainant then, after 2 years records his
sworn statement. The Magistrate then takes 6 years to record the
further sworn statement which happens on 07-10-2023 and then
passes an order taking of cognizance by the following order:
“Orders on ‘B’ Report and Issuance of Process
Complainant had filed a complaint before Indiranagar
P.S., in which IO filed B Report
2. It is the case of the complainant that, complainant has
obtained the ground floor bearing no.1214, 100 feet road, Hal II
Stage, Indiranagar, Bengaluru for a rent from the accused, to
run his import and sale of modular kitchen business. In this
regard, there are civil disputes between the accused and the
complainant, and on 23.12.2010, at about 9.30 am accused
came along with six persons and criminal trespassed in to his
shop. They assaulted office boys, Anand Kumar and Vinukumar
and locked them in a room and abused them in filthy language.
It is alleged that, accused also criminally intimidated the office
boys and damaged their belongings in the shop. It is also
alleged that, complainant was thrown out without giving his
belongings. Therefore, a complaint was lodged and it was
registered as Cr.No.523/2010. IO took up the investigation and
opined that there is civil dispute pending between them with
regard to the said property. The IO also observed that though
the complainant had vacated the premises, in order to take back
the possession, he had filed this case and that the complainant
did not co-operate in the investigation. Hence, he filed B report
to the Court.
3. On service of notice on ‘B’ Report, complainant
appeared through his counsel and led his sworn statement as a
protest to the ‘B’ report. He deposed the same as his complaint
averments in his sworn statement. He got marked 31
documents as Ex.C1 to Ex.C31. Ex. C1 is the letter issued by
Accused no.2, Ex.C2 is the Memo filed in OS No.8529/1999, Ex.
C3 is the Decree of the said suit, Ex.C4 to 7 are the letters to
43the Secretary of Governor, Commissioner of Police, Ministry of
Home Affairs and Under Secretary, Ex.C8 is the C/c of Order in
Crl. Petition No.354/2008, Ex. C9 is the FIR in Cr.No. 168/2006,
Ex.C10 is the C/c Order in Crl. P NO.4244/2009, Еx.С11 and 12
are the C/c of Plaints in OS No.15037/2005 and 15038/2005,
Ex.C13 is the letter to BESCOM, Ex.C14 is the C/c of Order in
WP No.18144/2010, Ex.C15 is the Memo filed by the accused in
WP No.18144/2010, Ex.C16 is the modified order of W.P.
No.18144/2010, Ex.C17 is the Complaint filed by Suresh on
23.12.2010, Ex.C18 is the FIR in Cr.No. 523/2010, Ex.C19 is the
list of invetories furnished to the police, Ex.C20 is the counter
complaint given by accused no.2. Ex.C21 is the FIR in Cr.No
524/2010, Ex.C22 to 24 are the Affidavits, Ex.C25 is the C/c of
Order in WP No.812/2011, Ex.C26 is the C/c of Order WP
No.3111/2011. Ex.C27 is the C/c of Judgment in CC
No.22814/2006, Ex.C28 is the C/c of Order in Crl. P No.
3208/2012, Ex. C29 is the C/c of Order in Crl.P No.4186/2012,
Ex.C30 is the C/c of Order in Crl.P No.1681/2018 and Ex.C31 is
the C/c of Order in Crl.P No.1682/2018.
4. On perusal of the sworn statement and the
documents and the ‘B’ report, it is the allegation of the
complainant that the accused along with six others
trespassed in to his shop and assaulted his office boys,
locked them up in a room and abused them in foul
language. It is also alleged that accused threatened the
complainant’s staff and threw the complainant out
without giving his items and also damaged his things in
the office. It is also submitted that he gave a list of
inventories to the police to help him recover same.
However, the IO filed B report on the ground that there is
civil dispute and that the complainant was already
dispossessed and as such, he had filed a false complaint.
IO also opined that the complainant did not co- operate in
the investigation. However, on perusal of the documents
produced, and the sworn statement of the complainant,
there are sufficient grounds and prima facie case for
rejecting the B report and issuing process against
accused for answering the charges for the offences
punishable under Section 447, 341, 323, 427, 379, 504,
506 of I.P.C. Since the remaining six persons are not
known, process is issued only against the accused.
Therefore, I proceed to pass the following:
44
ORDERS
Cognizance is taken against accused No.1 & 2 for
the offence punishable under Section 447, 341, 323, 427,
379, 504, 506 of I.P.C.
Office is directed to register the case against the
accused no.1 & 2 in Register No.III for the offence
punishable under Section 447, 341, 323, 427, 379, 504,
506 of I.P.C.
Issue summons to accused no.1 & 2, if steps taken.
R/by 23.03.2024.
Sd/- 10/1
X Addl.C.M.M., Bengaluru.”
(Emphasis added)
Here-again, the learned Magistrate refers to several proceedings
between the two. The issue would be, whether the order on ‘B’
report and issuance of process would meet the rigour of procedure
as laid down by this Court in the case of DR. RAVIKUMAR v MRS.
K.M.C. VASANTHA4, wherein the co-ordinate Bench of this Court
holds as follows:
“…. …. ….
5. The procedure followed by the Learned Magistrate
is not in accordance with law. It is well recognized principle
of law that, once the Police submit ‘B’ Summary Report and
protest petition is filed to the same, irrespective of contents
4
ILR 2018 KAR 1725
45
of the protest petition, the Court has to examine the
contents of ‘B’ Summary Report so as to ascertain whether
the Police have done investigation in a proper manner or not
and if the Court is of the opinion that the investigation has
not been conducted properly, the Court has got some options
to be followed, which are,-
i) The court after going through the
contents of the investigating papers,
filed u/s 173 of Cr. P.C., is of the
opinion that the investigation has not
been done properly, the court has no
jurisdiction to direct the Police to file
the charge sheet however, the Court
may direct the Police for re or further
investigation and submit a report, which
power is inherent under section 156(3)
of Cr. P.C., but before taking cognizance
such exercise has to be done. This my
view is supported by the decisions of
the Hon’ ble Apex Court in a decision
reported in between Abhinandan Jha v.
Dinesh Mishra1 (para 15) and also Full
Bench decision of Apex Court in
between Kamalapati Trivedi v. State of
West Bengal2.
ii) If the court is of the opinion that the
material available in the ‘B’ Summary
Report makes out a cognizable case
against the accused and the same is
sufficient to take cognizance, and to
issue process, then the court has to
record its opinion under Sec. 204 of Cr.
P.C., and the Court has got power to
take cognizance on the contents of ‘B’
Summary Report and to proceed against
the accused, by issuance of process.
iii) If the court is of the opinion that the ‘B’
Summary Report submitted by the
Police has to be rejected, then by
46
expressing its judicious opinion, after
applying its mind to the contents of ‘B’
report, the court has to reject the ‘B’
Summary Report.
iv) After rejection of the ‘B’ Summary
Report, the court has to look into the
private complaint or Protest Petition as
the case may be, and contents therein
to ascertain whether the allegations
made in the Private complaint or in the
Protest Petition constitute any
cognizable offence, and then it can take
cognizance of those offences and
thereafter, provide opportunity to the
complainant to give Sworn Statement
and also record the statements of the
witnesses if any on the side of the
complainant as per the mandate of Sec.
200 Cr. P.C.
v) If the court is of the opinion that the
materials collected by the police in the
report submitted under section 173 of
Cr. P.C. are not so sufficient, however,
there are sufficient materials which
disclose that a cognizable offence has
been committed by the accused, the
court can still take cognizance of the
offence/s under Section 190 read with
200 Cr. P.C. on the basis of the original
complaint or the protest petition as the
case may be. After taking cognizance
and recording sworn statement of the
complainant and statements of
witnesses if any and also looking into
the complaint/Protest Petition and
contents therein, if the Magistrate is of
the opinion that, to ascertain the truth
or falsity of the allegations further
inquiry is required and he thinks fit to
post pone the issue of process he can
47
still direct the investigation under
section 202 of Cr. P.C., to be made by a
Police officer or by such other officer as
he thinks fit, to investigate and submit a
report, for the purpose of deciding
whether or not there is sufficient
ground for proceeding against the
accused. In the above eventuality, care
should be taken that, the case shall not
be referred to the Police under section
156(3) of Cr. P.C., once the magistrate
takes cognizance and starts inquiring
into the matter himself.
vi) After taking such report under section 202 of
Cr. P.C., and looking to the entire materials
on record, if the magistrate is of the opinion
that there are no grounds to proceed against
the accused, then the Magistrate is bound to
dismiss the complaint or the Protest Petition
u/s. 203 of Cr. P.C. as the case may be.
vii) If in the opinion of the Magistrate there are
sufficient grounds to proceed against the
accused, on examination of the allegations
made in the Protest Petition or in the
complaint, as the case may be and also after
perusal of the sworn statement, then he has
to record his opinion judiciously, and issue
summons to the accused by exercising
power u/s. 204 of Cr. P.C.
But, none of these procedures have been followed by
the Learned Magistrate. On the other hand, as could be seen
from the records, the Learned Magistrate even without
rejecting the ‘B’ Summary Report and without taking
cognizance of the offences, but after going through the
contents of the Protest Petition has directly provided
opportunity to the complainant to give her sworn statement.
On the basis of the contents of the Protest Petition, and after
relying upon the contents of the Protest Petition and the
sworn statement, the Learned Magistrate has rejected the ‘B’
48
Summary Report which virtually amounts to putting the
horse behind the Cart.”
(Emphasis supplied)
A perusal at the order on ‘B’ report quoted supra does not inspire
even a semblance of confidence, as the order neither rejects the ‘B’
report nor accepts the ‘B’ report, but takes cognizance and issues
process, this is what is held to be an error in law by the coordinate
bench in the afore-quoted judgment.
23. Therefore, without going into the fact whether the
complaint, the sworn statement or the order of taking cognizance
meeting the ingredients of the offence, I deem it appropriate to
remit the matter back to the hands of the learned Magistrate to
redo the process of considering the protest petition, to pass an
order on the ‘B’ report and protest petition in consonance with the
judgment rendered in the case of RAVIKUMAR supra. Therefore,
the resultant inference would be that, Crl.P.4241 of 2024 which
challenges proceedings in C.C.50448 of 2024 for offence punishable
under Section 500 of the IPC is to be obliterated and the
49
proceedings in Crime No.523 of 2010 in Crl.P.No.4250 of 20224 are
to be remitted back to the hands of the learned Magistrate.
24. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) Crl.P.No.4241 of 2024 is allowed. Proceeding
in C.C.No.50448 of 2024 pending before the X
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Bengaluru stand quashed.
(ii) Crl.P.No.4250 of 2024 is allowed in part. The
order of taking cognizance dated 0-01-2024 is
quashed. The matter is remitted back to the
learned Magistrate to redo the exercise of
answering the ‘B’ report and the protest petition,
bearing in mind the observations made in the
course of the order.
(iii) The concerned Court shall conclude the
proceedings as afore directed within 4 weeks from
the date of receipt of the copy of this order and
regulate its procedure further.
50
(iv) Ordered accordingly.
Consequently, I.A.No.2 of 2024 pending in Crl.P.No.4241 of
2024 also stands disposed.
Sd/-
(M. NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
Bkp
CT:MJ